I've done both domestic, and international.
*I* am adopted. I have an ORIGINAL birth certificate that states all the particulars of my birth, and I have a replacement birth certificate created 6 years later that contains information which is mostly not true. (And yet it has the same doctor’s signature as the original. How do you suppose they did that?)
The Judge signed a Court Order that the State produce a new birth certificate, showing that your adoptive parents were your birth parents. Its a crime to forge a birth certificate, so the State officials would have been careful to preserve the Court Order, and the original birth certificate. The only thing you reference that is not 100% like what I've done, and seen done, in Texas, is the doctor's signature. And that could have been done in the past.
For all intents and purposes, the state regards me as having been born under the name I now have. That this is legally so is apparent. However it is not ACTUALLY so.
OK. But did they change the date, time or place, or is that exactly the same on both? I've seen Texas birth certificates, issued after an adoption, that show the names, and addresses, of the adoptive American parents, but the date, time and place of the birth is copied exactly from the original birth certificate. Even when it was an international adoption. Texas birth certificate, foreign place of birth.
All the evidence that I have seen regarding Obama tends to indicate that he was adopted at least once, and possibly even twice. (First by Lolo Soetoro, Second by his Grandparents.)
Yes. But BO has either gotten the State of Hawaii to issue a copy of his original birth certificate, which may, or may not, have been superseded when he was adopted, or you believe in a half century old conspiracy to fake the place of BO's birth, so that he could run for President one day. Adoption would be an explanation for an inability to produce a "long form" birth certificate -- in many adoptions the adoptive family will never have had an original "long form" birth certificate. But adoption explains nothing about the long form birth certificate BO has produced, unless you are alleging that it too is a post adoption birth certificate, and that BO has yet another, earlier birth certificate.
With all of this in mind, do you not think it is not only reasonable that the American Public should know the particulars of such a history regarding Mr. Obama, but beyond that it is in fact a DUTY to know of these things?
I don't think that we ought to elect corrupt, Anti-American, socialists to anything. But 53% of the voters disagreed with me in 2008. What makes you think there is any chance that Americans will be ready to re-elect BO in 2012, ready to approve Obamacare, trillion dollar deficits forever, corruption, thuggery, vacillation, betraying our allies, promoting Jihadism, and all the rest. But that the discovery of some event that took place before BO's birth, or while he was an infant, will be what it takes to swing the voters to the GOP? Does that make any sense at all?
The fabled Kenyan Birth at least would have, under the law as it stood at the time, disqualified BO from the Presidency. Heck, it would have made him an illegal alien.
But it never made any sense. How did the couple travel to Kenya? Boats would have taken months. Airlines did not allow late term pregnant women to fly internationally, back then. What airline was there? BOAC (British Overseas Air Corp. -- or close enough) flew into Hawaii, and Kenya. There were two flights a week into Kenya. One from Cairo, one from India. In DC3s.
Why did BO's daddy spend money he didn't have, to take his American "wife" to Kenya? So that she could meet his other wives, and give birth to his child under third world conditions? And if they somehow did manage to get there, and have BO born in Kenya, how did they get him to Hawaii, with no passport, and no paper trail? And why the conspiracy since BO's birth, if not before, to fake his place of birth?
None of that ever made any sense. At all. And if there was any grain of truth to it, how come the Clintons didn't dig it up, and and have some third party drop it on BO?
At least Orly has given up on trying to litigate BO out of office, and is filing ballot access lawsuits. I've been telling Birthers that was their only shot for 18 months. Now she didn't form a political party, and get a Birther on the ballot, so the lawsuit is not Candidate A vs. Candidate B, which I've told Birthers is their best shot. But Disgruntled Conspiracy Theorist vs. Candidate B is a big step up from Disgruntled Conspiracy Theorist vs.POTUS. Who knows, she may even lose this case on its lack of merits, and not the usual way -- on the fact that she is asking the court to overturn Congress's certification of the winner of the 2008 election.